ILNews

COA uses opinion to clarify sentence claims

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals used a defendant's appeal today to clarify that inappropriate sentence claims and abuse of discretion claims are to be analyzed separately.

David King's appeal of his sentence following a guilty plea to dealing cocaine as a Class B felony in David King v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0802-CR-162, prompted authoring Judge Nancy Vaidik to explain inappropriate sentence and abuse of discretion claims are to be analyzed separately. King's inappropriate sentence argument also had references to the abuse of discretion standard.

Because not-for-publication opinions are showing other attorneys are making this mistake, the appellate court wanted to use this opinion to clarify that an inappropriate sentence analysis doesn't involve an argument that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant, Judge Vaidik wrote.

Appellate courts may revise a sentence if it is found to be inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and character of the offender. The location of where a sentence is to be served is reviewable by the appellate court, but isn't subject to a review for abuse of discretion, she continued.

In the instant case, King, who was ordered to serve six years at the Department of Correction, alleges he should have been allowed to serve his time in community corrections or "at least be given the benefit of the mental health evaluation and treatment he clearly needs," but he doesn't detail the treatment. At his sentencing hearing, the trial court noted King claimed to have multiple personality disorder, a diagnosis he made himself.

His counsel failed to present evidence of what type of treatment King allegedly needs and was confused about King's diagnosis. The attorney requested placement with a mental health component, but didn't specify that component, wrote Judge Vaidik. And, King received his medication while in jail awaiting sentencing. Because of this evidence, King failed to persuade the appellate court his placement with the DOC was inappropriate.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT